Who knew the 6.15 Omega Quests… (Spoilers)

[Lauront]

Mm. I know a number of posters - Lauront included - have posts with clear sources that have been posted in response to such claims. At one point I had them bookmarked though something tells me hunting them down would prove to be a waste of time when they're deliberately overlooked and/or downplayed.

Yep, here for the older ones and the JP Hyth text Lurina kindly provided.

Honestly I think the third set of sacrifices are a moot point come Endwalker, as we know now that the point of contention was purely ideological.

Venat was clearly scared of humanity following the path of the Plenty and believed they needed to embrace suffering and hardship. This is no doubt affected by the fact she met the WoL, where the sundered are largely forced to accept living with suffering and strife, even though this is because their only other option is death. She came to the conclusion that the ancients, who had the ability to ultimately escape their newfound situation through both their own power and Zodiark and would over time return to their previous idyllic world, had failed the test set by Hermes and passed her judgement. The test which only she knew was taking place, the test which only she knew the cause of.

Would they have been able to have the resolve to defeat Meteion and find a way to do so in the future, had they known the cause? Most likely, considering how powerful the ancients and especially the members of the convocation were. However it is clear that Venat's issue lie within the ancient way of life itself and where she believed they were headed. She took it upon herself to be the one to pass judgement, which is what I believe to be her failing.

I agree. My problem with the fixation on the sacrifices is this:

1. It is ambiguous as to what they are. Statements about wanting to entrust the star to them do not resolve this. Moreover, the text on Hyth in the JP version, coupled with knowledge of how the ancients create life from 6.0, is strongly pointing to these being creations, and probably their progeny once they got round to the usual "the bees and the birds" thing. Very few of these are even capable of any real degree of sapience, and those which are in a limited fashion, we're told by and large don't qualify for souls (familiars.) So was she spinning a narrative that some of these might potentially become sapient, e.g. through a process of evolution, with knowledge she gained from the WoL about the sundered world, and used to embellish a bit? Were some sapient familiars or the like? Did she just mean make do with this new life and don't restore our brethren in the Purgatory, because this would repeat our doom? Is she pulling a bait and switch to buy time through such arguments, such that she can amass more support to summon Hydaelyn? We do not know, because it's never specified, and this is one of the biggest issues many of us have with the story, along with shying away from showing the Sundering and shoving it into the Nier crossover game. Bringing me to the next point.

2. The writers do not even reference this as a motivation of hers. The in-game explanation, articulated by Y'shtola, is that she was concerned ancient man could not manipulate dynamis. The Q&A explanation given is her belief that her people would not change and thus fear that they would head the way of the Plenty. As I've noted in the sources, even discussions in her faction centre around the ancients repeating their doom and she concedes that the Convocation intended the sacrifices in their bid to secure the star's future well-being, so their motives aren't in dispute. And even the dispute over it may have centred around whether those inside Zodiark would want to be revived; something a returned Elidibus could comment on and confirm the state of purgatory the souls saw themselves in. The writers have now had ample opportunity to clarify this - to me it is now abundantly clear that her overarching concern is dealing with Meteion and avoiding the Plenty, as the evidence concerning any intrinsic concern with the sacrifices is scant, and besides this, she has no qualms sundering all life on the star.

3. If, as some argue based on the new Watcher dialogue, her faction knew about her intent to sunder all along, then what would convincing the ancients otherwise accomplish? True, they were already divided over this (and the implication seems to be support for her faction's purported viewpoint waned over time), but let's posit the scenario where all handing over the star to the new life meant is the ancients don't exchange animals, plants and familiars for those in the Zodiark purgatory - if as some argue that the ancients could not devise means to deal with her (which, like you, I don't really buy), then so what if they did stop the sacrifices? She - resolved to do so whether the rest of her faction was or not - would still need to proceed with sundering them anyway. And if she did have in mind a scenario where they contrived alternate means (thus resolving the Dynamis problem), but was concerned that based on their mentality at the time, they'd end up as the Plenty, then this is precisely the point where the debate reverts to "well what if she'd told them the truth?" and the sacrifices become irrelevant.

TLDR I consider them to be a red herring at this point, as her real beef was their stance to "suffering". And like Brinne has articulated, EW has helped explain their strong emotional motive to proceed with this third stage. I think the burden of proof required by a civilisation that had managed to extirpate or at least mitigate many forms of suffering, in light of this, is going to be greater than a few platitudes about "suffering".

I also do not really understand this fixation with Venat being "objectively" justified. For the choice I went with (yes, Emet), it was sufficient that they're justified based on their perspective and aims - i.e. restore a star and people inexplicably shattered following an apocalypse, albeit at a terrible cost to the resulting fragmented life forms. But did it need to be "objectively" justified in the sense that you have to agree this was the best or only way forward, or that all parties had to agree this was necessary? No, there is no reason the sundered had to accept his own intentions as a reason to be wiped out, and neither did it need to be the case with Venat. It was a decision she made based on beliefs she had and was a way to achieve her aim, and it came at a great cost, both for the ancients and for the sundered shards.

If the writers revert to trying to push this as some "objectively" best scenario, in spite of all the ambiguities in the game which cast doubt on this (with the Omega quest further pulling apart this notion of one "correct" stance to despair, as Veloran notes), or resume attempts at ancient bad to transmute their erasure into a "good thing", and do so with more clumsy, heavy-handed and at best superficially/tangentially relevant "themes", I'm afraid that's the point where I will check out, as I've little interest in being pushed such a narrative. I don't necessarily want something like an AU - it would be nice for the sake of exploring and I wouldn't object to it, but it's not necessary - for me the key thing is that they clarify their message on what happened to the ancients and Venat's actions being driven by her beliefs of what would be best, rather than some Objectively Best and Only Way, and they went some way to treating this as a matter of perspective in the Omega quests. So a regression would be most unfortunate.

On the topic of personal views, I will simply say that had the story premised her as annihilating her people over a dispute regarding animals, plants and maybe some rare sapient familiars, that would be an even more abhorrent reasoning to me than what they went with in the story - this viewpoint simply does not compute for me, and I am afraid I am simply at an irreconcilable impasse with anyone who would see it as sufficient - something I'd view as dimly as wiping out humans for the sake of some 'ecological' balance, or for the sake of animals, or the like. Overall, based on what we know of the sundered, vs the ancients and their symbiotic view of how they, their creations and star fit into a singular lifeforce, I am baffled that it is even argued that the ancients were somehow worse in this respect - this is at odds with everything we're shown about the sundered, whatever excuses are contrived for them. But again, even if this were the reverse, it would still not suffice for me as a good enough reason, let alone an "objective" one.